By Eng. Mohamed Ali Mirreh
Greg Rosshandler’s article “Separation as a Possible Response to Persistent and Intractable Religious and Ethnic Conflicts in Failing Arab States”, published by the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), presents itself as a sober analysis of Arab state fragility. In reality, it is a politically motivated narrative designed to justify the dismemberment of Arab societies. Somalia, regrettably, is placed squarely in the crosshairs of this argument.
Rosshandler clearly writes from a perspective deeply shaped by his political identity and alignment. As a staunch supporter of Netanyahu’s hardline policies, his worldview reflects the Israeli right-wing doctrine that Arab unity is a threat and Arab fragmentation a strategic advantage. This bias permeates his thesis, making it less about conflict resolution and more about advancing a geopolitical agenda that weakens Arab states.
The article’s central claim—that separation is a viable solution to ethnic and religious conflict—functions as a justification for dismantling Arab states. Somalia is unfairly grouped into this framework despite its unique historical trajectory. By promoting fragmentation, Rosshandler dismisses the possibilities of reform, reconciliation, and inclusive governance, instead presenting division as both inevitable and desirable.
Rosshandler’s arguments echo the talking points of clannish secessionist movements, particularly those in Somaliland. He amplifies the secessionists’ claims without engaging with the perspectives of pro‑union clans from the same region, limiting himself to rehashing propaganda rather than offering independent analysis. This uncritical repetition risks legitimizing factionalism rooted in elite power struggles rather than genuine ethnic or religious divides. He even goes so far as to encourage Israel’s recent recognition of the so‑called “Somaliland”—a clannish enclave no other country has recognized as a independent state, precisely because it reflects the ambitions of a single clan in northern Somalia rather than a broad national consensus.
Historical Misrepresentation of Somaliland
Somalia`s history is often distorted by those who advocate for the recognition of “Somaliland” as a separate state. Somaliland was never a separate state in 1960. When Britain withdrew from its colonial occupation, the territory united with Italian Somalia to form the Somali Republic. The claim of historical independence is a revisionist construct pushed by secessionists, not a fact recognized by international law or historical consensus. By ignoring this reality, Rosshandler manipulates history to fit his argument for fragmentation of Somalia.
Somaliland Is Not Monolithic
For decades, Somaliland has been portrayed as a unified secessionist entity, a breakaway region that declared independence in 1991. Yet this narrative oversimplifies the complex realities on the ground:
1) Clan-Based Secession: The 1991 declaration was spearheaded by one clan, while other major clans did not collectively endorse or sustain that vision.
2) Emerging States: A Northeastern State already controls nearly 40% of the territory once claimed by Somaliland. In Awdal, another state is in the making, signaling further fragmentation and rejection of unilateral secession.
3) Changing Dynamics: What was once presented as a singular “Somaliland project” is now challenged by new political realities. Multiple states are emerging, each representing distinct communities and interests and it is only a matter of time when the idea of Somaliland will be a history.
Homogeneity of Somalia
Unlike Iraq, Syria, or Sudan—where sectarian and ethnic divisions are entrenched—Somalia is homogenous in religion (Islam), ethnicity (Somali), and language (Somali). The push for secession is therefore not rooted in irreconcilable identity differences but in power struggles and elite interests. Rosshandler’s attempt to lump Somalia with multi‑ethnic states is misleading, as the drivers of conflict are fundamentally different.
International Law and the African Union Position
International law emphasizes territorial integrity over unilateral secession, and the African Union (AU) has consistently upheld this principle. The AU’s 1964 Cairo Resolution enshrined respect for inherited colonial borders to prevent endless fragmentation across Africa. In line with this, the AU, UN, EU, Arab League, and IGAD have all rejected recognition of Somaliland, reaffirming Somalia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Even after Israel’s unilateral recognition of Somaliland in 2025, these organizations condemned the move as a violation of international law. A 2005 AU fact‑finding mission investigated Somaliland’s claims for independence but concluded that recognition would contradict the AU’s foundational principles. As a result, the AU has “frozen” the debate, emphasizing solutions within Somalia’s framework rather than legitimizing secession.
Conclusion
Rosshandler’s article is not a neutral policy analysis but a geopolitical narrative aligned with Israeli hardline interests. By misrepresenting Somali history, amplifying secessionist propaganda, and ignoring Somalia`s homogeneity, he constructs a flawed argument that seeks to justify division rather than unity.
Moreover, international law and African Union principles categorically reject externally encouraged fragmentation. The AU’s Constitutive Act enshrines respect for inherited colonial borders, and the UN Charter upholds territorial integrity as a cornerstone of global order. Somaliland’s unilateral secession lacks both legal legitimacy and regional endorsement. Somalia’s challenges demand inclusive governance, institutional reform, and regional cooperation—not externally encouraged dismemberment.
Eng Mohamed Ali Mirreh
Email: m.mmirreh@gmail.com